1 2025:CGHC:48829 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 245 of 2025 1 - Preeti Jain W/o Rohit Jain Aged About 44 Years (Original Defendant), Present Add. R/o Through Ashok Bansal, Ward No. 8, Pawan Disk Road, P.O. Kantabhanji, Distt. Balangir, Odisha 767039, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Applicant ) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Pramila Jain W/o V.K. Jain Aged About 72 Years (Original Plaintiff), Present Add. R/o A-27, Sector-1, Bajaj Colony, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Respondent) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (23.09.2025) 1. This civil revision has been preferred by the applicant/defendant assailing the order dated 23.08.2025 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.), whereby, in Civil Suit No. 41A of 2024, their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) has been dismissed. 2. By way of this civil revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief:- “a) Issue a notice to the Respondent and call for the entire records pertaining to Civil Suit No. 41A/2024, titled as Pramila ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Jain vs. Preeti Jain, from the Court of the Learned 8th Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) for its kind perusal. b) Be pleased to allow the present Civil Revision by quashing and setting aside the impugned, illegal, and jurisdictionally flawed orderdated 23.08.2025 passed by the Learned 8th Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in the said Civil Suit (Annexure A-1). c) Consequently, be pleased to allow the Applicant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Annexure A-3) and reject the plaint (Annexure A-2) filed by the Respondent as being manifestly barred by the law of limitation. d) And pass any other and further order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the paramount interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.” 3. Facts of the present case, in nutshell, are that the instant appeal is filed before this Hon’ble Court to rectify a grave legal error and manifest injustice committed by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in an order dated 23.08.2025, whereby the learned court erroneously declined to dismiss a suit that was clearly barred by the law of limitation. The suit, instituted by the Respondent/Plaintiff (the applicant’s mother-in-law) on 30.04.2024, seeks cancellation of a registered Gift Deed dated 11.09.2009, after an unexplained delay of nearly fifteen years. The Applicant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is palpably barred by limitation under Article 59 read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribing a three-year limitation period. However, 3 the learned trial court, misled by the plaint’s elaborate averments of a recently discovered “fraud,” erroneously held that limitation involves a mixed question of fact and law requiring full trial, thereby refusing to reject the suit at the threshold. This decision is contrary to the settled legal position that where a plaint is on its face barred by limitation, it is the court’s duty to dismiss it summarily to prevent abuse of its process. This appeal thus seeks to set aside the impugned order and to quash the time-barred plaint to uphold the sanctity of the limitation law and protect the Applicant from unnecessary harassment. 4. The parties shall be referred to in their respective positions as before the Trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is manifestly erroneous, legally unsustainable, and suffers from a patent jurisdictional error, as the learned trial court failed to exercise its statutory duty to reject a plaint that is clearly barred by limitation on its face. The court wrongly held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, ignoring that the plaint itself, read with the relied-upon documents, conclusively shows the suit is time-barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three- year limitation period from the date of execution of the registered Gift Deed on 11.09.2009. Despite this, the suit was filed after an inordinate delay of nearly fifteen years, with no plausible explanation for the delay or valid cause of action arising only recently, and the purported claim of “fraud” is vague, unparticularized, and insufficient to revive a long-dead 4 claim. The learned court was misled by the Respondent’s “clever drafting,” contrary to settled Supreme Court precedents which mandate that such vexatious and meritless suits be summarily dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC to prevent abuse of the court’s process. Moreover, the gift deed was duly executed and accepted, rendering the transaction irrevocable under established property law principles. Allowing this belated suit to proceed causes undue hardship and harassment to the Applicant, who is already embroiled in matrimonial disputes, and thus, this Hon’ble Court’s intervention is essential to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice by setting aside the impugned order. 6. To strengthen his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2020) 16 SCC 601, (2007) 3 SCC 66, and the recent decision rendered in Civil Appeal No. 1525 of 2003, to support the submission that where, on a plain reading of the plaint, the suit appears to be barred by limitation, it is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). It is contended that the suit filed by the respondent is clearly barred by limitation and, therefore, ought to have been dismissed at the threshold. However, the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in law by failing to exercise its jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on this ground. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have carefully 5 perused the averments made in the plaint. I have also examined the documents annexed with the present revision application, particularly paragraphs 6 and 7 thereof. 7. It is a well-settled principle that while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be considered. The Court is not to look into the defenses raised in the written statement or any external material at this preliminary stage. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanju Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives & Ors. 1 , has held in paragraphs 29.11, 29.12 and 29.13 are pertinent to reproduced herein below :- 29.11. The plea taken in the plain that they learnt of the alleged fraud in 2014, on receipt of the index of the sale deed, is wholly misconceived, since the receipt of the index would not constitute the cause of action for filing the suit. 29.12. On a reading of the plaint, it is clear that the cause of action arose on the non-payment of the bulk of the sale consideration, which event occurred in the year 2009. The plea taken by the plaintiffs is to create an illusory cause of action, so as to overcome the period of limitation. The plea raised is rejected as being meritless and devoid of any truth. 29.13. The conduct of the plaintiffs is not takin recourse to legal action from over a period of 5 and ½ years from the 1 (2020) 7 Supreme Court Cases 366 6 execution of the sale deed in 2009, for payment of the balance sale consideration, also reflects that the institution of the present suit is an afterthought. The plaintiffs apparently filed the suit after the property was further sold by Respondent 1 to Respondents 2 and 3, to cast a doubt on the title of Respondent 1 to the suit property.” 9. Furthermore, in the matter of Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by Legal Representatives 2 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Para 9 which is as under :- “9. Now, so far as the application on behalf of the original plaintiff and even the observations made by the learned trial court as well as the High Court that the question with respect to the limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, which can be decided only after the parties lead the evidence, is concerned, clearly barred by law of limitation, the same can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.” 10. Lastly, in the case of Indian Evangelical Lutheran church Trust Association Vs. Sri Bala & Co. 3 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 8.3 has held under :- “8.3 We are conscious and mindful of the fact that while considering the question of rejection of the plaint, it is the 2 (2020) 16 Supreme Court Cases 601 3 2025 INSC 42 (Civil Appeal No.1525 of 2023 decided on January 08, 2025) 7 plaint alone which has to be read meaningfully and not any averment in the written statement. It is also necessary sometimes to consider the documents, annexed to the plaint for a holistic and comprehensive reading of the plaint in order to decide whether the plaint ought to be rejected or not. But the present case is not a case where there is only one suit which has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the same cause of action and therefore, only a single plaint ought to be considered while deciding the issue of rejection of the plaint. This is a case where a second suit has been filed after the rejection of the plaint in the earlier suit filed on the very same cause of action and for the very same relief of seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 26.04.1991. In order to ascertain whether the plaint in the second suit ought to be rejected on the ground that it is barred by law such as the suit being filed beyond the prescribed period c limitation and therefore, is barred within the meaning of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code, we think it is useful to consider the fact that an earlier suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the very same cause of action in the year 1993 itself which resulted in the rejection of the plaint in the said suit owing to non-payment of the court fee. This fact is pertinent when the contention of the defendant/appellant herein is that the second suit filed on the basis of Order VII Rule 13 of the Code is barred as it 8 has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.” 9. From the pleadings in the plaint, it appears that the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a declaration that the registered Gift Deed dated 11.09.2009 is null and void, along with a prayer for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff is that the said Gift Deed was fraudulently executed by the defendant—who happens to be the plaintiff’s real daughter-in-law—in her own favour. Although the deed bears the date 11.09.2009, it was never disclosed to the plaintiff nor acted upon by the defendant at any point prior to April 2024. 10. The plaintiff contends that she remained unaware of the execution of the said Gift Deed until she received a letter dated 09.04.2024 from the Office of the Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur. The said letter concerned a request made by the defendant for changing the name in the electricity connection (Consumer No. 10015060) to that of her husband, Rohit Jain. Upon receiving the letter, the plaintiff responded on 15.04.2024, and it was only then, for the first time, that she became aware of the existence and alleged fraudulent execution of the Gift Deed. 11. Thereafter, she raised objections to the proposed name change in the electricity records and sought relevant documents. She also submitted an application before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, asserting that the Gift Deed was an ineffective and invalid document, which had never been executed voluntarily or accepted by the plaintiff. She further claimed to be in possession of the 9 suit property and requested that no mutation or transfer be effected in favour of the defendant based on the said document. A police complaint was also lodged on the grounds that the Gift Deed was void ab initio and had never been accepted or acted upon, and that the defendant may be restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession. 12. From the documents annexed by the defendant herself with the revision petition, it is apparent that for determining the issue of limitation as well as the cause of action, evidence is required to be led. The matter involves disputed questions of fact which necessitate framing of appropriate issues and adjudication through a full-fledged trial. 13. This Court is in agreement with the legal proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments relied upon by the applicant. However, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. The cited decisions pertain to suits for specific performance of contract, whereas the present case involves allegations of fraudulent execution of a Gift Deed that was never acted upon or accepted, as required under the Transfer of Property Act. As per Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, a “Gift” is defined as the voluntary transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made without consideration by the donor to the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. It is further mandated that such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while the donor is capable of making the gift. If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is rendered void. 10 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable where bona fide disputes exist, warranting full-fledged trial and adjudication. The issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which requires appreciation of evidence. Similarly, the effect of the earlier suit and the judgment passed therein can only be determined upon examining the relevant documents and pleadings, which again necessitates recording of evidence. 15. In the present case, the voluntary nature of the transfer and the acceptance by the donee are both seriously disputed and cannot be determined solely on the basis of the averments in the plaint. These are questions requiring evidence and cannot be summarily decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 16. The order passed by the Trial Court is well-reasoned and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, no ground is made out for interference with the order passed by the learned Trial Court. The revision petition lacks merit and is, therefore, liable to be Dismissed. 17. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena